[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Spamming the World through Open Debian Mailinglists (Re: lists.debian.org has received bounces from you)



[maybe the "Listmaster of the day" is able to read when other people get
involved in this]

Cord Beermann wrote:
> Hallo! Du (Jeroen Massar) hast geschrieben:
> 
>>> 	(http://lists.debian.org/bounces/iLpJvMjXJJDuaeJK2W6wdA)
> 
>> Stop forwarding spam already! I've mentioned this before.
> 
>> There is a VERY simple solution to this problem btw: make the list
>> subscriber-post-only, as the subscriber base is small (and the real
>> traffic too) it will be hard for the spammers to guess a correct source
>> address.
> 
> We are aware that Debian-Mailinglists aren't 100% spam-free, but if
> you can't accept that, don't subscribe to our lists.

The spam-check is not even needed if you would simply close it, as I
wrote. READING is *VERY* difficult it seems, lets try it differently:

=========> Those senders are *NOT* subscribed to the lists <==========
=========> Most Debian lists are ****OPEN**** lists        <==========

From http://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/:
"This list is not moderated; posting is allowed by anyone."
From: http://lists.debian.org/debian-ipv6/
This list is not moderated; posting is allowed by anyone."
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/
"This list is not moderated; posting is allowed by anyone."
and basically every other list

And as those lists addresses are very easily harvested from anywhere
spammers just LOVE them and you even nicely forward them to a lot of
other people and even the archives.

If you would change that little thing (making the lists
post-by-subscribers only) then that spam would not get forwarded by the
list because the spammers are not signed up in the first place (okay,
the spammer could get smart, guess a correct source etc, but then only
PGP/DKIM/SPF or whatever could save your day)

Thus if you would simply turn on subscription-only mode all is solved
and that would make a lot of people AND the list archives VERY happy.

See for all your spam your own bloody archives, just a little selection
doing simple scan on subject:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2008/12/msg00029.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2008/11/msg00100.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2008/11/msg00105.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2008/10/msg00008.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2008/10/msg00045.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2008/09/msg00010.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2008/09/msg00040.html

and just in case, other lists get it too:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2008/12/msg00121.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2008/12/msg00143.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2008/12/msg00138.html

You claim the mailbox does 50k mails per day, and 2500 spams make it
through the filters (cool that you know that btw, if you know it is
spam, why don't you filter them?) Now, multiply that 2500 times the
number of subscribers, and tada you can calculate how many spam you are
sending, I bet it is more than the original 50k.

> http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/ also contains some hints how you
> can help us to improve the ham/Spam-ratio, you can also simply bounce
> (As in mutt) spams you get through our lists to:
> report-listspam@lists.debian.org

Yes, because I really have time to do spam reports and doing it manually
is really such a great idea and will nicely take a lot of time from
everybody. I rather do useful stuff thank you. And having to sign up
every once in a while to a Debian list is really annoying because you
get kicked off because you are forwarding spam.

Just turn on the subscribe-only bit already, that makes it easy for
EVERYONE and solves all these crappy issues you are having.

And yes, my SMTP server and those of a lot of other people will
CORRECTLY refuse to accept mail classified as spam and correctly give a
500 SMTP error code as the server will refuse to deliver it.

Greets,
 Jeroen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: